Russian Ukraine Invasion

[confused2]

I expect Putin would act like a cornered animal if NATO country troops surged into Ukraine.

Earlier discussion has suggested 'Europe' would be unable to defeat Putin's army [edit by giving full support to Ukraine] - unwilling isn't the same as unable.

[Syne]

https://www.newsweek.com/nato-without-us...on-2040393

[stryder]

The durability of ceasefire agreements is affected by several factors, such as demilitarized zones, withdrawal of troops and third-party guarantees and monitoring (e.g. peacekeeping). Ceasefire agreements are more likely to be durable when they reduce incentives to attack, reduce uncertainty about the adversary's intentions, and when mechanisms are put in place to prevent accidents from spiraling into conflict. - wiki

There's no need to guarantee the durability of such a short-lived ceasefire. Not to mention moving peacekeeping troops for a mere 30-hour ceasefire would not be worth the cost. You'd be more likely to end up with the peacekeepers in the line of fire when fighting resumes. If intentional, that would sound like a NATO conflict trap.

The point I tried to make is that Putin picked a short ceasefire on purpose because he knows it's not going anywhere. If he'd been serious, it would of been longer and had other countries involved to monitor, not just his press fake newsing.

[Syne]

There are often very short ceasefires for humanitarian reasons, like tending to the dead.

[stryder]

There are often very short ceasefires for humanitarian reasons, like tending to the dead.

Those are usually done at a localised capacity in regards to the theatre of operations between sides, not something that is announced by the leadership of a country. iThats the problem though, it might have been possible to generate localised ceasefires but that would require Russian military leadership to do that autonomously without Putin weighing in like a want-to-be Hitler.

[Syne]

So calling for a humanitarian ceasefire is now "want-to-be-Hitler?"

Just goes to show the left's eagerness for war nowadays. It couldn't possibly be a demonstration of willingness to negotiate a peace deal.
And it might not be. But why is the foregone assumption that there will be no peace? Is that what Brits are being told?

There will be no peace deal... oh yeah, and keep calm and carry on.

[stryder]

So calling for a humanitarian ceasefire is now "want-to-be-Hitler?"

Just goes to show the left's eagerness for war nowadays. It couldn't possibly be a demonstration of willingness to negotiate a peace deal.
And it might not be. But why is the foregone assumption that there will be no peace? Is that what Brits are being told?

There will be no peace deal... oh yeah, and keep calm and carry on.

I should really put it into context:

Hitler micromanaged, so he tried commanding the war rather than leaving it to those that were dealing with it in real time.
My point about Putin is he's "micromanaging", which means hes heavily reliant upon his propaganda engine to cover up his fuck ups.

And for some reason Syne you think I'm a Lefty? I'm not a Left, sure there are some aspects of thought that might seem left, but I place devils advocate a fair bit. To be honest I'm more in the middle because both the moderate to extreme left and right suck balls.

It's not that there will never be peace, it just will not be down to Putin saying so (Hes too personally invested and it would undermine any prospect of peace).

[Yazata]

The operative phrase being "conventional warfare." If NATO countries join in earnest, do you think Putin would just withdraw his troops and lick his wounds?
Or would that be proof of the very provocation he claims motivated the Ukraine invasion? If the latter, how far do you trust Putin to be restrained in any possible preemptive strike?

I expect Putin would act like a cornered animal if NATO country troops surged into Ukraine.

If NATO entered the war, would that be NATO with or without the United States?

I think that the likelihood of the US entering into direct warfare with Russia is remote. The US has no vital national interests at stake in Ukraine and the danger of nuclear escalation would be too great.

NATO minus the United States might find it difficult to exert decisive force. (Read the remarks by the German officer in post #1796 on the last page.) Some of the European NATO members are minimal military powers at best. Slovenia? North Macedonia? Even the British, in their current depleted state, would find it difficult to field a ground battle force of more than 10,000 for an extended period in high-intensity peer-peer warfare. European air forces might find it difficult to silence Russian air defenses and achieve necessary control of the air over the battlefield. Drone warfare would be an unfamiliar challenge to them. Artillery ammunition would start to run out in a short time, perhaps just weeks.

But yeah, Britain, France, Germany, Poland and Spain combined might have the combined mass to punch through the Russian lines at some point and perhaps trigger a rout.

So how would Russia respond? When Ukraine was all cocky in 2023 while planning their great summer offensive, which they expected (and Russia feared) would slice through the Russians and trigger a rout, Putin announced that Russia would defend Crimea by breaking out tactical nuclear weapons. I believe that he would have.

So what then?

Would the United States, having stood aloof to this point, nuke some Russian forces somewhere with all of the escalatory risk inherent in that? (Almost zero chance.)

If Europe was on its own in this adventure, would Britain or France use their small nuclear arsenals against Russians in Ukraine? That would definitely violate French nuclear doctrine which says that French nuclear weapons are only to be used in the case of existential threats to the French nation. I doubt that Britain would either.

[Syne]

I really doubt that micromanager = Hitler is valid reasoning. And there is no lasting peace deal without Putin's involvement. Or... do you have a plan to unseat him?

---

Yeah, Yaz, I don't think the US would get involved, and I think the EU would face significant challenges with US support. I posted this breakdown earlier: https://www.newsweek.com/nato-without-us...on-2040393
It points out that the EU has better collective air power than Russia, but Russia has more ground to air weapons, which could nullify that advantage.
I think Putin would likely make strikes against many EU military/weapons targets, possibly eroding that air advantage from the onset. Europeans might change their tune pretty quick if it hit so close to home early on.

And for all the demonizing of Putin going on, I find it odd that more people don't believe he'd use tactical nukes. The risk of US involvement would be the only deterrent, but is NATO bound to defend member countries who initiate hostilities? I doubt it. So Putin escalating an EU initiated offensive might not draw US involvement. Definitely no chance the US wants to use nukes.

Could Putin striking military targets in the EU be seen as an "existential threat?" I guess that depends on who's running those governments.

[stryder]

Russia when the USSR was always seen as a threat by the US after the second world war due to it's need to acquire territory.
The British saw them as a threat for slightly longer because of The Great Game (wikipedia.org), although time would of erased what memory there was about it. It actually ended with a diplomatic agreement on borders for Afghanistan.

Back then Britons were known to have military careers as it was a necessary part of running an "empire" (You can't run one without security) The regiments fought all over the world (including the US war of independence) There were problems however such as logistics chains for supplies and moving forces, diseases and available medicine. Food quality was also a factor, but many of these things were definitely upgraded on after the first and second world war. (A lot of changes made)

That is why any Tyrant building an empire needs the excuse of militarization, if they haven't managed to convert all their subjects into raving zealots.

Russia's involvement in conflict generally is Expansionisms, the same expansionism that the US was always being tarred with (which Trumps Protectionism is causing Contraction, which will lead to further problems down the road due to Vacuums being made)

Russia still has strong ties with South American countries. If they become un-demonised by the world due to Trumps office, it will just be a future Cuban Missile crisis that could of already been averted if they were treated hostile to begin with. (Although to be honest there was a lot of fuss about that, but Russia's been patrolling the oceans around America in Nuclear submarines for years and no one seemed to care... well leak information that might of caused concern.)

I mention this because by definition, we have been at threat from Russian aggression for years, we've even had acts of aggression occur on our soil and likely some events that happened in the world were Russian backed.

How many ISIS fighters used AK's or Russian made munitions? (That being said they are now sporting A-14/A-16 thanks to the blackmarket sale of weapons left to the Taliban.)

Overall no one from the West wants to just go to war, its mixture of loss of life as well as increasing costs etc. (It would require building a level of Patriotism without our countries that just doesn't currently exist at the level necessary, especially with all the Psy-ops fake news to keep it from getting that zealous)

That is what Russia knows and counts on, however if the West became as flippant as Trump with their mindset, things would change pretty quick.